Having received her weekly digest and enjoyed a good read of this thread Ann Goodman has sent me a message for the forum together with two images of a tampan in her collection:

Quote:

Dear Pamela,The thread on the rare palepai is a wealth of information.

Among the first textiles that I purchased was a tampan. It had been exhibited in London at The Textile Gallery in 1975 as "Kroe, Birds and Figures, Lampong coastal area of Sumatra, late 19th century 92 x 98 cm, cotton embroidery on a cotton foundation." I was struck by the vivid graphic composition of the whole with the central figure starkly silhouetted against a less dense background, surrounded by the dark embroidery detailing what appears to be a ship cabin or a house. The central figure differs from the one immediately below. Are these two figures different by sex or by social status? What about the other small figures who resemble the main silhouetted figure rather than the triangular-chested figure? I have attached a photo of the whole textile and a detail showing (blurrily) the cotton base cloth. I interpret this tampan as an ancestral history.

With a thread of such interest I am compelled to add my uniformed but enthusiastic bit.Best to all,Ann

I must say that this Ann's textile is a very striking one! It looks to have a balanced, quite lose background weave and the motifs, while having a pleasing sense of balance, are not symmetrical - which would pass a couple of the key tests in Chris Reid's check list! It does, however, look amazingly fresh and new as if safely stored away since it was cut off the loom length. The odd bright red spot, that seems to be all.

Ann, the motifs in these tampan are usually created directly on the loom with supplementary weft rather than embroidery and I would expect that to be the case here.

I would not even hazard a guess as to the meaning of the motifs. Taking the design at face value it looks like a busy harbour scene or a leader with his flotilla of followers - or navy - around him! Would be a very satisfying 'picture' to sit back and dream about all the goings on or to form the basis of bed time stories for children! None of which, of course, is to be taken at all seriously!

Thank you for letting us see this lovely piece - from Michael Frances's Textile Gallery. I can imagine that he gave an entertaining explanation of the design (he always does), whereby I have trouble seeing birds, and, of course, “embroidery” is incorrect, but in 1975, Marla Mallett had not yet taught us all about weaving techniques.

As Pamela describes the piece: balanced but not symmetrical. That is art. Symmetrical is easy, but, as mentioned a couple of places above, suspicious, if a piece is claimed to be older. We know that weavers used existing items as a model. Nothing wrong with that, especially if the iconography was more significant than we can understand. When reproducing a design, however, the natural inclination is to “correct” apparent discrepancies to “improve” the balance by increasing symmetry.
For me, therefore, the lack of symmetry suggests that the piece was a first-off effort without a direct prototype.

I find it intriguing to put myself in the position of the weaver, seeing only the white warps as she envisions what she wants to weave. Assuming that 2/3 of the left border are cut off by the edge of the photo, she starts quite symmetrically, but then the diagonals go their ways, and she wants different things on the backs of her quadrupeds, which seems to upset the beginnings of what follows. She is an artist, however, so that is no problem; she can achieve balance without symmetry, as we now appreciate.

She is not only an artist but also a master of her handicraft, filling the background with all those little hooks and with unerring consistency dotting the blue areas with little rhomboids. This is probably second nature, a necessity to avoid too long floats, but could one of us do it?

Then, for whatever reason, the “hull” of the ship is offset to the left, perhaps because the diagonals leading up to it are both slanted to the left. From what was already woven, they had to be parallel. Had she already anticipated this, balancing it with the dark rhomboid on the right and the additional diagonal there? The broader vertical from the hull on that side certainly does. But she now has space to fill on the right, starting a new vertical border, which is only countered by a zigzag line on the other side.

In my theory, these are the types of things that would be “corrected” by a weaver using this piece as a model.

Could she have anticipated that she was going to hang it on the vertical from the ship? Did her iconography call for that? (Have we seen that elsewhere?) On the right, she starts an additional pendant. Because she feels the need for more “weight on that side?

One would like to test the accuracy of her balancing of the blue areas on the column that “supports” the ship - point on point, as if to tempt the viewer to appreciate her skill. Is it a ship - balanced on a column? Someone with more experience will have to tell if s/he has seen that before.

On a much lighter note, any dealer worth his salt, would explain that the beasts at the bottom are dinosaurs and an absolute sign of the prehistoric origins of the design.

Dear Pamela,I was intrigued to read Larry's perceptive analysis of the thoughts in the weavers mind as she worked on the tampan you posted for me. Larry is correct, the left side of the photo cuts off the vertical border which is symmetrical to that on the right side. Since we don't know the iconography I feel confident in saying that for me the most interesting aspect of this tampan is the very sophisticated control of the background, permitting the central figure to emerge strongly and serve as the focus for the entire piece. I chuckled over Larry's eye view as he wrote his critique, beginning as the weaver began with the white foundation on which the entire design was built, anticipating the bumps along the way and solving the problems therefrom. His theory that this piece is an original model rather than a "corrected' copy is insightful. I am grateful to Larry for his comments and to the Forum for presenting this marvelous thread.Ann

I have reread the catalog of the 1975 Textile Gallery exhibition, written by Lance Entwistle. He suggests that tampan can be divided into three groups, and his groupings support Chris and Larry's observation that assymetricality suggests earlier dates. Here follows an excerpt from the catalog:

“In the tampan the supplementary weft threads lie horizontally in relation to the design while in the pelepay they lie vertically. The tampan was widely distributed throughout coastal South Lampong and in especially large quantities in Kroe. This production would seem to have ceased in about 1900, while their ritual use may have persisted until about 1920. This dating is supported by recent field-work indicating that none of the present-day inhabitants of South Lampon could remember seeing the tampan made although a few could remember seeing them used. The sudden demise of this weaving tradition was probably related to the collapse of the pepper-trade which had made the Lampongs enormously wealthy during the nineteenth century. There is as yet no satisfactory chronology for the centuries preceding 1900 but it is not unreasonable to consider the tradition of considerable antiquity. In particular, the occurrence of pieces of varying style and quality of manufacture in a single locality is suggestive of an artistic evolution still to be defined. Several cultural symbols evident in the textiles also suggest remote origns; the ship (though not necessarily its symbolism) is of probably Neolithic derivation. Almost invariably tampan functioned as wrapping for bridal gifts to the family of the groom (who generally in Lampong bore the expenses of the bridal feast. Interpretation of the dominant themes of tampan -- ships, humans, and animals depicted with varying degrees of abstraction -- remains problematical and there would seem to be little hope of explaining them by reference to their intended function in marital ceremony. Quite possibly they are significant only in terms of rites long since abandoned. Alternatively, the art may have become secularized at an early date, its decorative repertoire representing an amalgam of residual 'cultural memories' from pre-Islamic periods and influences from neighboring cultures….. Broadly speaking three main styles can be distinguished. Firstly, a highly ornamented and relatively unabstracted style showing strong Javanese influence in the treatment of the human figure [Cf. Metropolitan Museum of Art 1990.335.22, and dated to the 18th century, which served as the cover illustration of the 1975 The Textile Gallery show] which is typically shown frontally and in profile simultaneously. Kroe textiles are characterized by a horror vacui but distinguished by an unerring ability to balance the demands of closely observed detail with the overall composition. The asymmetry of these pieces is unique in Indonesian textile art and unusual throughout Asiatic textile art. In our opinion this group comprises the earliest extant examples of this technique in the area. The second group would seem to represent a style deriving from the first but unfortunately insufficient documented pieces exist to support any kind of stylistic analysis. These pieces exhibit a general stiffening of line, most clearly seen in the border decoration; they also tend to a total symmetircality or an illusion of symmetricality. Detailing is less individualized and is generally subservient to the whole while abstraction is extreme, often with fantastical effect. In the third group the abstraction of detail and formalization of the overall composition is even more rigorous. These pieces are all found in the Kroe district to the exclusion of other styles. This homogeneity suggests that the style may be the most recent of the three and was adopted from the people of Lampong Bay sometime during the nineteenth century. The fact that the Kroe people are somewhat outside the mainstream of Lampong culture, an isolation underscored by their geographical inaccessibility, tends to support this theory…… While the ship-motif, as is commonly asserted, may indeed be of Neolithic origin and associated with burial rites, it would seem to have evolved as a device for depicting a social structure. A central figure, or pair of figures, perhaps representing a noble and his spouse, commonly dominates the centre of the composition…..” (Lance Entwistle, Kroe-Ceremonial extiles from South Sumatra, The Textile Gallery, London, 1975).

Thank you for the additional information. Nice to have my thoughts supported. I also appreciated the way the more open background of the central figure emphasized that area with experienced skill.
It was interesting to scroll back and look at the other pieces in this regard. The first piece, posted by Georges, is also interesting, as is Chris Buckley's, posted on 22. Oct., although it is interesting to observe that the central area of it has a simpler background, sort of suggesting that the end panels with the trees were inspired by something else - very similar to those on Georges' piece.
Both are very symmetrical, which is not meant as criticism, just taking advantage of the chance to compare several pieces.
Really neatsy, i find, is the design of two-tone blue ground of Buckley's piece on 5. Nov., that develops swastikas when the space allows - but the weaver had to anticipate that.

A final thought - really:
It would seem that to weave a long palepai that is symmetrical, the weaver must have had a model, since she couldn't see what she had already woven.
She could "improve" on symmetry by reversing the model and weaving the second half, using the first half of her model to continue. (And then her daughter just copied her piece from end to end.)

I was looking in Gittinger's "Textiles and The Tai Experience" (The Textile Museum, 1992) yesterday for something else entirely and came across a photo taken by the author in Liwa, South Sumatra in 1970 (fig1.17 on page 48 ) that shows two women holding a long cloth, I guess it would be about 3 meters long, that consists of square tampan designs in symmetrical pairs. The caption says "known as tampan, the cloths were woven in long strips and cut apart as needed". There is no comment on the age of the cloth, but it looks fresh and clean and does not appear to have been particularly old when the photo was taken.

It does beg the question of how long production continued of these cloths and in which places.

I am reproducing a small part of the photo here (hoping this constitutes "fair use" and doesn't offend anyone's copyright sensibilities), showing the paired designs on about half of the cloth.

I think the paired mirror-image designs support Larry's comments about the way these cloths were woven.

Before answering the questions made by Chris R. about my blue decorative palepai I would like first to introduce myself.

In 2012, I will celebrate 40 years since my first trip to Indonesia, during that period I spent almost 10 years in this wonderful tropical country as a tourist, scientist, anthropologist, lecturer, guide, curator or textile's collector. It is always difficult to be called by oneself an “expert” but I think it is objective to attribute to me as such for the double ikat (geringsing) on the basis of my knowledge on the village of Tenganan (Bali) where they are produced. Incidentally, I have very good field knowledge of the eastern part of Sumba and its textiles. On the other hand I must admit that I never visited the province of Lampung and my knowledge of its textiles is only based on my reading, my visits to museums and the many textiles from this province that I examined at merchants and collectors from all over the world.

Before buying my last palepai, which I freely admit is more problematic, you should know that this one is the fourth in my collection that already included three, each of a different type.The classical and very rare palepai with a double red ship, the more common palepai with a single blue ship and the seldom palepai with a double rank of human figures and a rank of small barks in the middle. These three textiles were made in the XIXth century, the double red ship being the oldest and the single blue one the youngest. As these three textiles were examined by numerous museum experts I have no doubt that they are authenthic. It is also interresting to note that I have bought these three textiles outside Indonesia, two of them in auction in Amsterdam and the last one (single blue ship) in an antique shop of good reputation.

During my many visits to Indonesia, I saw dozens of true and false palepai and I have no problem to highlight the fake, especially those who have been made in Java. Now, it is very important to qualify what is for me a fake. A qualification who should not be confused with a late work, late in opposition to a so-called classical period, or a local copy of an old type. Once again it is for me very important to know if the fabric was made for sale or for a local use.

To my opinion a genuine textile (kain asli in Indonesian language) is, for me, a fabric done in a delimited area by a specific ethnic group, with the local materials and dyes, and for a local use (common or ritual). A fake is a textile made to deceive a buyer, especially to make a textile older than it actually is. A fake does not always respect the local technical and the decorative pattern of the local culture. Between these two extremes qualifications, there are local copies of older textiles and also new creations but made with the traditionnal techniques for a local use. Regarding the geringsing, I listed all these different possibilities (fake - local copy - new creation - genuine), but this classification is not perfect as a new creation, for example, may be genuine or false, and even a copy!

Now I must return to palepai we are interested but I still need some days to respond to Chris M.

Georges

Sorry the pictures of the palepai there under show only one half of the fabric!

The figures I have seen in tampan, not all that many, seem to generally be asexual. Some of the wayang like figures have kris and so may be judged male. Others seem to be wearing tapis and perhaps could be judged female. Archaic figures with clear genitalia, often found on other textiles from Indonesia, seem to be rather rare in tampan.

The figures in the corners of this tampan look clearly female to me and I wonder if they represent the primogenitor. She has a bird sitting on her head and shoulders, also somewhat unusual I think, and I wonder if this could be some kind of headdress connecting her to the realm of the ancestors. The bird has a wavy motif in its large tail which looks like a serpent, also a fertility symbol.

The cyclopean figure seems to have clearly female genitalia and be pregnant with the fruit of the womb. I wonder if the motifs that descend between her legs might represent the continuous birth of future generations, a continuum connecting her to the present and endless future generations.

Do other members see what I see or do I just have an over active imagination? Little seems to be known about Lampung before the 18th century. Its animistic past, origin myths and beliefs, as expressed in its textiles, seem to be a memory that was not transmitted to recent generations.

Any ideas, opinions or further information would be greatly appreciated. I saw that Chris Reid posted today and I am hoping he will see this post and again kindly share his wealth of knowledge on the textiles of Lampung.

I was hoping to reply with a study of the figures at the weekend but didnt have time. And am going on holiday for 3 weeks - can it wait till after that?

Meanwhile, the sex if thats what it is seems to be most frequently indicated on tampan from the west of lampung, as possible male genitalia, but yours is from Komering. Otherwise males and females are often recognisable by dress or headgear or hair, as illustrated in my earlier posting in this subject.

and heres another version of your tampan, but without any indicated sex of the person in the corner & much more abstract thing over the headIn this case the animal on the 'deck' appears to be male, and the central figure has a finger like genital fringe, but I really think this is all decorative.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum